Judgment: 2018-10-01 · Court archive

High Court refuses judicial review over pending criminal injuries claim

The Tribunal had not decided the applicant’s incomplete compensation claim, leaving no decision for the court to review. The judge refused all reliefs sought.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 527

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Sultan Chakari (Applicant)
  • Mr Justice Max Barrett
What

The Tribunal had not decided the applicant’s incomplete compensation claim, leaving no decision for the court to review. The judge refused all reliefs sought.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court refused all reliefs sought by Sultan Chakari in judicial review proceedings concerning the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, finding that there was no Tribunal decision for the court to review.

The High Court refused all reliefs sought by Sultan Chakari in judicial review proceedings concerning the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, finding that there was no Tribunal decision for the court to review.

Mr Justice Max Barrett said the Tribunal had not made a decision on Mr Chakari’s application, nor had it failed to make one. At the hearing, the application remained incomplete because relevant documents were outstanding. The Tribunal did not have enough information to decide the substantive claim, which remained pending at Mr Chakari’s election.

Mr Chakari submitted a non-fatal injury application to the Tribunal on 22 July 2016. In a letter dated 19 August 2016, his solicitor asked the Tribunal to disapply provisions of the compensation scheme that exclude general damages for pain and suffering. The solicitor also noted that the scheme did not provide for legal representation costs. The Tribunal replied on 8 September 2016 that applications were processed within the scheme’s parameters.

The judge held that this reply was not a decision susceptible to judicial review. He said the Tribunal was required to operate in accordance with the scheme and that the evidence did not suggest it could vary it.

At the hearing, counsel for Mr Chakari referred to an earlier High Court judgment, QL v. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which discussed circumstances where declaratory relief could help resolve a legal issue before an authority made a decision. Mr Justice Barrett said that judgment did not create a hybrid procedure allowing judicial review where there was nothing to review. He also found no material change in circumstances, new events or previously unknown information that could warrant declaratory relief.

The judge said a challenge to the compensation scheme should be brought in plenary proceedings. To challenge a Tribunal decision by judicial review, Mr Chakari would first need to progress his application until a reviewable decision was made. The court therefore refused all reliefs sought.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review